Global Heating Revisited

How many times have we heard: We have a decade, or we have three years, or we have until 2020? In the 1980s, ecologists used to say, “We have to solve this by 2000”, which is now a decade behind us. We don’t have 10 years or 3 years, or any years. We are already far behind any sort of timeline that might have kept Earth’s temperature from rising +2°C from the pre-industrial era. We are now gambling our progeny’s future with runaway heating that could ravage human agriculture, devastate the remaining forests, increase extinctions, and flood every coastal city on Earth.

Global heating

In the late 19th century, when Swedish chemist Svente Arrhenius predicted the impact of CO2, he warned that the radiation absorption would add “heat” to Earth’s atmosphere. In the 1970s, when ecologists learned from scientists about the risk of human carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions, we spoke of “global heating.” The phrase “global warming” became popular in the 1980s, although “heating” is the correct scientific term. Then, in 2003, the petroleum industry public relations machine came up with “climate change” to convince the public that the impact was natural and non-urgent.

It is time we return to the physically precise term, “global heating,” because that is what we are doing: We are heating Earth’s atmosphere, land, and oceans, and simultaneously turning the entire Earth ecosystem acidic. We should avoid the ambiguous euphemism “climate change” and speak clearly: “Global heating.”

Among modern society’s greatest villains, stand the little band of industry-funded “dissenters” – paid-off marginal scientists and mercenary ecology imposters – who spin a mythology that global heating is normal “climate change,” not real, or that it is caused by some force other than human carbon-dioxide. Geoscientists James L. Powell documented 13,950 peer-reviewed, scientific climate articles from the last 20 years and found that 99.83 % of these articles accept the unambiguous data that confirms global heating caused by human carbon effluents. The impostors perpetrate crimes against humanity and all of nature by denying these facts.

Sun vs. carbon

Recently, another “dissenter” has claimed that global heating is caused by changes in solar radiance. This claim defies the actual data, which remains clear as a bell. Heating and cooling result from what energy scientists call “forcings,” direct heat, dissipation of heat, insulation that retains heat, and so forth.

Annually, NASA’s Dr. James Hanson and others publish updates on the well-documented forcings that impact global temperature. The latest summary of these forcings is contained in a paper by Dr. Andrew Glikson at Australian National University: “No Alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down: A geological perspective.”

Heat, or energy transference, is typically measured in watts, about ¼ of a calorie of energy transferred in one second. Global heating forcings are measured in watts per square-meter (Watt/m2) of Earth’s surface. Glikson’s paper documents the actual forcings – both cooling and heating – that have impacted Earth’s temperature over recent centuries. Here is the summary:

Change in Radiative forcings, 1800 to Present:

1. Heating:

Solar irradiance: Compared to pre-industrial solar energy, the sun’s energy output has fluctuated between zero and + 0.3 Watt/m2 over the last two centuries, yielding a slight heating effect that could account for about 5% (or less) of the observed temperature increase.

HumanGreenhouse gases: The heat forcing from human carbon and other gases has risen from approximately zero in 1800 to + 3.1 Watt/m2 today, rising annually, and which accounts for about 95% (or more) of Earth’s temperature increase over the last two hundred years.

2. Cooling:

Volcanoes have had an intermittent cooling effect, by releasing aerosols, particles of ash and sulfur-dioxide that scatter and absorb sunlight. The cooling impact – most recently from the El Chicon and Pinatubo eruptions in 1982 and 1991 – is localized, intermittent, and short lived. On average, volcanoes have had a slight cooling effect.

Human aerosols rise from burning tropical forests, coal and oil, and now exceed the impact of volcanic aerosols. The effect has reached about -1.6 Watt/m2, a cooling, which has mitigated the impact of heating from human greenhouse gases.

Determining the Net Forcing is a simple matter of adding and subtracting. The effects of volcanoes, solar fluctuations, and human land use changes, net out to virtually zero. Human greenhouse gases and human aerosols are the only energy forcings that have serious temperature impact, and the math is simple enough for grade-school children:

+ 3.1 Watt/m2 heating from human greenhouse gases

– 1.6 Watt/m2 cooling from human aerosols

+ 1.5 Watt/m2 net heating.

So how much heat is this? Consider a typical 1500-watt space heater that can be used to heat a room. Earth’s surface area is 510 trillion square-meters. Multiply this by 1.5, and we see the net heat forcing is about 765 trillion watts. This is the equivalent of placing 500 billion such electric space heaters across Earth’s surface, land and sea, 30 meters apart, running 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

This is the global net forcing that has resulted from human industrial activity, from the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere. The net impact of fluctuating solar radiance remains trivial regarding the temperature increase from these gases since 1800.

No confusion. No controversy. No hidden data. And none of this is particularly complex science. Svente Arrhenius roughly predicted these results over a century ago. James Lovelock estimated similar results in the 1960s. The denialists huff and puff like 16th century church patriarchs, who refused to accept that Earth orbited the Sun.

Feedbacks

Unfortunately, our dilemma is even more complex. The heating creates feedback mechanisms that cause more heating. Since 1800, atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen from approximately 280ppm (parts per million) to approximately 400ppm, but since the extra heat is melting the permafrost and releasing methane (CH4), and since methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas, climate scientists must calculate the “carbon-dioxide-equivalent” (CO2-e) that includes the methane impact.

In fact, scientists must consider all the amplifying feedbacks caused by warming, including at least:

Using the more appropriate CO2-e figure, since 1800, atmospheric CO2–e concentration has risen from 280ppm to 470ppm, a 68% increase in the heat-trapping capacity of these gases in Earth’s atmosphere. The build-up of these gases, however, has not been linear, but rather exponential. This means that not only are the gases accumulating, but the rate of accumulation is increasing. We’re not just speeding down the highway toward a cliff, we are accelerating, as we see by looking at the annual greenhouse gas increases over the last millennium:

Thus, we see, that most of the change has occurred since 1950, and since these changes have unleashed feedback mechanisms, the increase in greenhouse effect will likely continue even if we reduce fossil fuel use. According to the 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) projections – without urgent, worldwide policy changes – the greenhouse gas accumulation rate will more than triple to + 8 ppm / year by 2100.

These data have led climate scientists to re-examine the temperature increases expected over this century. Past projections have been conservative and have tended to be linear, but since the gas build-up is non-linear, exponential; and since observed temperature increases, ice melts, methane releases, and so forth also appear exponential; projected temperature rise has been adjusted upwards in recent studies.

The MIT group ran 400 variations of the model, changing certain input parameters, including variations in physical conditions, human activity, economic policy, and so forth. The projections indicate a median probability by 2100 of CO2 concentration reaching 550 ppm and a median probability of Earth heating by 5.2 degrees Celsius (°C), with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 °C, compared to the 2003 estimates of 2.4°C.

The lower bound, or minimum projected heating, is now + 2.4°C by 2100, with a “very small probability” it will be this low, and only with drastic, immediate, global policy changes that reduce our reliance on oil and gas.

So there you have it: The United Nations goal of restricting Earth’s heat increase to + 2°C by 2100, has already failed. A century of science and two decades of “climate meetings” have failed. The world’s governments and corporations have failed. As we exceed the + 2°C threshold, we risk runaway heating as the feedback mechanisms kick in. As we approach the median probability of Earth heating by +5.2 °C, we almost certainly activate runaway heating.

To global heating, we can add the greatest species collapse in 65 million years. Earth has undergone changes of this magnitude before, and will endure, but human culture has not. Throughout the Holocene, the last 12 millennia, humanity developed agriculture, urban life, and industrial technology in a relatively stable climate. In the last 200 years, we have destabilized Earth’s climate; flooded our lands, air and water with toxins; turned the oceans acidic; and obliterated millions of species. Our progeny now face an uncertain and troubling future.

As an ecologist in the 1970s, I believed that humanity would respond to the ecological imperative as it responded to the social imperative; that we would develop an ecological society just as we developed ideas of democracy, civil rights, and women’s rights. Perhaps our natural optimism bias and good intentions led us to believe circumstances would improve, but the data shows us something quite the opposite. It now appears that our optimism was misplaced. The ecology movement may have one last chance, but the stakes are now much higher, and our actions – to succeed – will have to be similarly more rigorous.

Well this one from the master himself sure knocked my socks off, ...staggering and sobering information. Always an amazing read from Rex, ...this one...

Well this one from the master himself sure knocked my socks off, ...staggering and sobering information. Always an amazing read from Rex, ...this one needs to be seen and read by every person, corporation, and government. Bravo to all your hard work and research, and to all those who support you. This article is of such great value it must be shared. Bless you Rex, ...James Hanson, those at MIT, and your great warriors at Greenpeace

For those of you who believe having to work in Amsterdam and having to see your South African Asian daughter at least twice a year...feel free to use the ECo2 calculator to realize what this means to your energy-footprint.

add that small scale, hands on agriculture consistently produces 2 to 10 times as much per acre, so with these methods about 2 to 10 times less soil would need to be farmed.

“Large farmers tend to plant monocultures because they are the simplest to manage with heavy machinery. Small farmers on the other hand, especially in the Third World, are much more likely to plant crop mixtures -- intercropping -- where the empty niche space that would otherwise produce weeds instead is occupied by other crops. They also tend to combine or rotate crops and livestock, with manure serving to replenish soil fertility.

Such integrated farming systems produce far more per unit area than do monocultures. Though the yield per unit area of one crop —corn, for example —may be lower on a small farm than on a large monoculture, the total output per unit area, often composed of more than a dozen crops and various animal products, can be far, far higher. Therefore, if we are to compare small and large farms we should use total output, rather than yield. Total output is the sum of everything a small farmer produces: various grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, animal products, etc. While yield almost always biases the results toward larger farms, total output allows us to see the true productivity advantage of small farms.

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/246

More local, small scale farms can also mean less transportation of both harvests and workers, so less CO2 emissions from transportation.

Add these three together and I would agree that “The ecology movement may have one last chance, but the stakes are now much higher, and our actions – to succeed – will have to be similarly more rigorous.” The potential greenhouse gas reduction of this kind of reformed agriculture is significant, but we have to stop quibbling about details if it stops us from doing.

I wasn't aware that the term climate change came from the petroleum industry. I've always been under the...

Great article - thanks.

I wasn't aware that the term climate change came from the petroleum industry. I've always been under the impression that because the impacts of global heating are varied, and do not always result in local temperature increase (and can instead result in increased extreme weather events, changes in weather patterns, etc.), that the term 'climate change' is used to acknowledge a range of potential impacts beyond local warming.

Anyways, just a thought. Really enjoyed the post - keep up the good work.

I agree with Kate that I believed the term Climate change was just the correct term since the impact varies around the world. Also since the term Glob...

I agree with Kate that I believed the term Climate change was just the correct term since the impact varies around the world. Also since the term Global warming was being made fun of every time an area had cooler temps. I hear it a lot if the area has more snow or more cold weather that it proves global warming is not real.
What we call it can make a difference in some people who just don't know all the facts.

Kate and Siobhra make a good point about the varied effects of CO2 around the world. Nevertheless, the term "climate change" was introduced by U.S. public relations mercenary, Frank Luntz, hired by the oil industry to help soften the blow of global heating.

Luntz had previously invented similar slogans for pharmaceutical companies, fast food chains, and the U.S. Republican Party. Luntz advised the fossil fuel industry that the term “global warming … connotes catastrophic consequences,” and he taught spokespersons to say “climate change,” which presented “less of an emotional challenge.” He tutored them to call oil drilling “energy exploration,” to exploit common scientific dialogue as “uncertainty,” and to “portray the scientific community as divided.”

Luntz's "climate change" was then repeated by climate denialists S. Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz, and industry front groups Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute. Singer had previously worked in tobacco industry campaigns to help conceal the health effects of cigarettes.

It is true that as the atmosphere and oceans heat up, atmospheric conditions may result in some regions experiencing a cooling effect. And we still have winters, and some winters are colder than others. However, the fact remains that CO2 in the atmosphere is heating the Earth, land, sea, and air, and turning the ecosystems acidic.

It may be appropriate in certain situations to discuss varied "climate changes" from CO2 and global heating, but it may also be helpful to expect to be mocked for speaking the truth. If the denialists trot out some particularly cold winter or some region that experienced a brief cooling, that provides a perfect opportunity to explain in depth how CO2, methane, and the other climate feedbacks work. I would still encourage us to use the scientifically accurate "global heating" and when using "climate change" to explain what is causing this and that the net effect is heating and acid in the environment.

Appreciate your sharing, Rex.
I've felt frustrated by our attempts to convince governments, corporations and communities to change our lifestyles through petitioning, threatening, begging and challenging and I believe that there's another approach that's well within reach of the average citizen.
When we grow our food without chemicals and close to where we live, we're reducing the carbon inputs and emissions associated with our food supply by about 70%. At the heart of everything we do is the need to feed ourselves, and so changes in the food system are immensely important and I'd say pivotal. I've written to Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman and others urging them to encourage their constituencies to follow them in growing a small victory-style garden. Gardening leads to community, to saving money, reducing our carbon footprint, a reduction in feelings of alienation and it puts healthy food into the hands of everyone irrespective of how much money they earn. It creates employment and subverts the destructive civilisation that's causing the planet to combust.

This is my response to the problems that you've described and I'm curious to hear what readers think and feel.